If you just want to undermine what i am saying for the sake of it fine. But it's baseless. Don't come back if you don't want to, that doesn't really effect the legitamacy of what i am saying.

Originally Posted by flowerpow

No, I'm just tired of people coming on here spitting out false information with sources that are not credible in the least. A personal experience is just that. Don't try to back it up with reviews, and other hairdressers "opinions" saying they are from scientists, because hairdressers obviously got their Master's degree in scientific studies.

Originally Posted by sixelamy

Fine, I will site directly from the scientific abstracts themselves.

Originally Posted by flowerpow

Citing from the abstracts themselves doesn't help. That is the researcher's interpretation of the data. You have to cite the data and give your own interpretation of it; again this depends on the reader and the variables of the experiment.

No, I'm just tired of people coming on here spitting out false information with sources that are not credible in the least. A personal experience is just that. Don't try to back it up with reviews, and other hairdressers "opinions" saying they are from scientists, because hairdressers obviously got their Master's degree in scientific studies.

Originally Posted by sixelamy

Fine, I will site directly from the scientific abstracts themselves.

Originally Posted by flowerpow

Citing from the abstracts themselves doesn't help. That is the researcher's interpretation of the data. You have to cite the data and give your own interpretation of it; again this depends on the reader and the variables of the experiment.

Originally Posted by DaniGirl88

There is no interpretation when it comes to hard facts being stated objectively. Facts and statistics can be misconstrued and important points omitted, and that is where unreliable reader opinionated interpretation comes in.

But I have not put my opinion that it causes bald spots for everyone. Never said that once, anywhere. I have not omitted any important information. There are not contradictions in what i have been saying, and i have been proving myself by staying objective and in line with the hard facts. Nothing is strayed.

I have supported the conclusions i have made, because i have not strayed to any opinionated conclusions. Every point i made was objective, and only a repetition of what the abstract said, hence the direct quotations.

Depends on how the research was conducted. Also, depends on who wrote the article and how they interpreted the results. Then, it depends on how I interpret the results as a reader of the article. I can interpret it different than you, even though there statistics and numbers given. For me, it depends on how they arrived at those statistics and numbers. How was their sample determined? Is it a true experiment? What is the validity of their experiment? There so so many elements to a research study, that one little factor can render it invalid. Again, it all depends on the reader.

Originally Posted by DaniGirl88

Oh, okay. I have a direct quote that shows the study's legitamacy is correct. I will edit it in.

"Study participants reside in more than 17 states, with the majority residing in New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey. The Institutional Review Board of Boston University Medical Center approved the study protocol."source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759283

Originally Posted by flowerpow

Unfortunately, the link takes me to a login page.

But from this quote, I see what the sample consisted of but not how they were chosen. Just because Boston University Medical approved the study protocol, doesn't mean that it is automatically valid. Let me put it this way, a study can be legitimate, without being valid. I can find a study valid, but another researcher may find it invalid. Those doing the study will be stating their peace about why they feel it is valid and how they came to that conclusion (usually written in the article) and there can be other articles written to disprove the findings. It is like a debate. One researcher conducts an experiment to further their opinion on the matter. We can choose to believe or disbelieve based on the data represented. So, while you may choose to believe it, others may not. Unless they have irrefutable proof and the data is extremely significant, it leaves room for argument.

I'm not saying this is the case, because I haven't read the articles or interpreted them for myself. I just wanted to point out that what you find significant may be insignificant to others on this forum.

Citing from the abstracts themselves doesn't help. That is the researcher's interpretation of the data. You have to cite the data and give your own interpretation of it; again this depends on the reader and the variables of the experiment.

Originally Posted by DaniGirl88

There is no interpretation when it comes to hard facts being stated objectively. Facts and statistics can be misconstrued and important points omitted, and that is where unreliable reader opinionated interpretation comes in.

But I have not put my opinion that it causes bald spots for everyone. Never said that once, anywhere. I have not omitted any important information. There are not contradictions in what i have been saying, and i have been proving myself by staying objective and in line with the hard facts. Nothing is strayed.

I have supported the conclusions i have made, because i have not strayed to any opinionated conclusions. Every point i made was objective, and only a repetition of what the abstract said, hence the direct quotations.

Originally Posted by flowerpow

I am no doubting your opinion, or saying that it is incorrect. Just wanted to point out the room for error in these kinds of articles. They are more reputable than Wikipedia, that's for sure, but there is still room for argument. I disagree about the interpretation part, but that comes from my time spent doing research. I hope you find out what is causing your problem.

Depends on how the research was conducted. Also, depends on who wrote the article and how they interpreted the results. Then, it depends on how I interpret the results as a reader of the article. I can interpret it different than you, even though there statistics and numbers given. For me, it depends on how they arrived at those statistics and numbers. How was their sample determined? Is it a true experiment? What is the validity of their experiment? There so so many elements to a research study, that one little factor can render it invalid. Again, it all depends on the reader.

Originally Posted by DaniGirl88

Oh, okay. I have a direct quote that shows the study's legitamacy is correct. I will edit it in.

"Study participants reside in more than 17 states, with the majority residing in New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey. The Institutional Review Board of Boston University Medical Center approved the study protocol."source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759283

Originally Posted by flowerpow

Unfortunately, the link takes me to a login page.

But from this quote, I see what the sample consisted of but not how they were chosen. Just because Boston University Medical approved the study protocol, doesn't mean that it is automatically valid. Let me put it this way, a study can be legitimate, without being valid. I can find a study valid, but another researcher may find it invalid. Those doing the study will be stating their peace about why they feel it is valid and how they came to that conclusion (usually written in the article) and there can be other articles written to disprove the findings. It is like a debate. One researcher conducts an experiment to further their opinion on the matter. We can choose to believe or disbelieve based on the data represented. So, while you may choose to believe it, others may not. Unless they have irrefutable proof and the data is extremely significant, it leaves room for argument.

I'm not saying this is the case, because I haven't read the articles or interpreted them for myself. I just wanted to point out that what you find significant may be insignificant to others on this forum.

Originally Posted by DaniGirl88

More HARD Proof it is valid is contained in the abstract. I will edit post them here.

"With regard to uterine leiomyomata, a random sample of cases (n = 24 were mailed supplemental questionnaires regarding their initial date of diagnosis, method(s) of confirmation, symptoms, and treatment, and they were asked for permission to review their medical records. We obtained medical records from 127 of the 128 women who gave us permission and confirmed the self-report in 122 (96%). Among the 188 (76%) who provided supplemental survey data, 71% reported uterine leiomyomata-related symptoms prior to diagnosis, and 87% reported that their condition came to clinical attention because they sought treatment for symptoms or a tumor was palpable during a routine pelvic examination. There were no appreciable differences between cases who did and did not release medical records with respect to uterine leiomyomata risk factors.[46]"

"Hair relaxer variables were categorized according to their frequency distributions in the analytical sample. We also created a hair relaxer score variable, the product of frequency and duration of use, after first converting them to continuous variables by assigning values to the midpoint of each category. We defined "never users" as those who reported never using hair relaxers or having used them for less than 1 year in total. A covariate was included in multivariable analyses if it was either an established risk factor for uterine leiomyomata identified from the literature or a potential risk factor for uterine leiomyomata associated with hair relaxer use. On the basis of these criteria, we constructed a multivariable model that controlled for age (1-year intervals), time period (2-year intervals), age at menarche (years), parity (births), age at first birth (years), years since last birth (<5, 5–9, 10–14, 15, ≥20), oral contraceptive use (never, current, past), body mass index (<20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, ≥35 kg/m2), smoking (current, past, never), current alcohol use (<1, 1–6, ≥7 drinks/week), education (≤12, 13–15, 16, ≥17 years), marital status (married/partnered, divorced/separated/widowed, single), occupation (white collar, non-white collar, unemployed, missing), household income (≤$25,000, $25,001–$50,000, $50,001–$100,000, >$100,000, missing), geographic region (South, Northeast, Midwest, and West), and country of birth (United States vs. outside United States)."

"Tests for trend were conducted by modeling the ordinal categorical version of the exposure variable among the ever users of hair relaxers.[48] We used stratification methods to examine whether main associations were modified by other covariates such as body mass index, education, and geographic region. P values from interaction tests were obtained by using the likelihood ratio test comparing models with and without cross-product terms between the covariate and exposure variable. Departures from proportional hazards were evaluated in the same manner by using cross-product terms between each exposure variable and age (<35 vs. ≥35 years) and time period (1997–2003 vs. 2003–2009). Analyses were performed by using SAS, version 9.2, statistical software.[49]"

now, You guy's keep arguing that the made reason it the ingredient is corrosive.

And yes, ethanolamine solubalizes all acids to turn into NaOH. I already provided a credible source explaining and proving that.

Ethanolamine onced bonded with an oil, will not produce the sodium effect. But I already explained and sourced from some scientific studies-- this only happens in oil based products. The first ingredient in this gel is water. Same with no lye relaxer. According to this scientifically supported info, oil can isolate the salting effects just as much as you claim carbomer does. In this relaxer, it contains 2 sets of mineral oils before the calcium hydroxide is added. This means there is more mineral oil in comparison to the calcium hydroxide. Also, low lye in relaxers has a potency of 2.5% sodium hydroxide, and are equally as effective as higher percentages. It just works slower. It is also claimed to be safe when you look it up on ewg. This product is still able to form sodium hydroxide, even though the concentrations are at 5%. It has already been shown that if the product is water based, no amount of oil or emollient occlusive will be enough to stop the reaction. That will only occur in oil based products.

look at the scientific study about how The fact that this is a clear gel means it was heated, and therefore the alcohol denatured. and triethanolamine is part of the ethanolamine group, it is classified as an amino alcohol.

These gels wouldn't be this clear if they didn't contain denatured alcohol. Below is a scientific study that shows the effect of denaturzation on the viscosity of protein systems. Note it also says some things about NaOH, which this product contains. No matter the amount of NaOH, it will always denature the protein systems in water based substances once heated. Once heated, that is when it forms a clear, gel consistency. This is where these products holding abilities and clear consistency come from.

I dont get it. Again, there CANT be OH- ions in an acidic solution. Thats chemistry 101. There is no NaOH, that would only happen if the solution is basic and provided its not bonding to other compounds.
If you add enough acid to ANY alkali it will neutralize and if you still ad more it will end up being acid.
That low lye ingredient list has calcium hidroxide as active ingredient and the product is basic to break the hair bonds. Thats it, i dont underestand what you try to prove with that

Citing from the abstracts themselves doesn't help. That is the researcher's interpretation of the data. You have to cite the data and give your own interpretation of it; again this depends on the reader and the variables of the experiment.

Originally Posted by DaniGirl88

There is no interpretation when it comes to hard facts being stated objectively. Facts and statistics can be misconstrued and important points omitted, and that is where unreliable reader opinionated interpretation comes in.

But I have not put my opinion that it causes bald spots for everyone. Never said that once, anywhere. I have not omitted any important information. There are not contradictions in what i have been saying, and i have been proving myself by staying objective and in line with the hard facts. Nothing is strayed.

I have supported the conclusions i have made, because i have not strayed to any opinionated conclusions. Every point i made was objective, and only a repetition of what the abstract said, hence the direct quotations.

Originally Posted by flowerpow

I am no doubting your opinion, or saying that it is incorrect. Just wanted to point out the room for error in these kinds of articles. They are more reputable than Wikipedia, that's for sure, but there is still room for argument. I disagree about the interpretation part, but that comes from my time spent doing research. I hope you find out what is causing your problem.

Originally Posted by DaniGirl88

I have already found what has caused my problem. After eliminating it, I solved the problem. My hair is extremely healthy now, and has grown back no issue.

now, You guy's keep arguing that the made reason it the ingredient is corrosive.

And yes, ethanolamine solubalizes all acids to turn into NaOH. I already provided a credible source explaining and proving that.

Ethanolamine onced bonded with an oil, will not produce the sodium effect. But I already explained and sourced from some scientific studies-- this only happens in oil based products. The first ingredient in this gel is water. Same with no lye relaxer. According to this scientifically supported info, oil can isolate the salting effects just as much as you claim carbomer does. In this relaxer, it contains 2 sets of mineral oils before the calcium hydroxide is added. This means there is more mineral oil in comparison to the calcium hydroxide. Also, low lye in relaxers has a potency of 2.5% sodium hydroxide, and are equally as effective as higher percentages. It just works slower. It is also claimed to be safe when you look it up on ewg. This product is still able to form sodium hydroxide, even though the concentrations are at 5%. It has already been shown that if the product is water based, no amount of oil or emollient occlusive will be enough to stop the reaction. That will only occur in oil based products.

look at the scientific study about how The fact that this is a clear gel means it was heated, and therefore the alcohol denatured. and triethanolamine is part of the ethanolamine group, it is classified as an amino alcohol.

These gels wouldn't be this clear if they didn't contain denatured alcohol. Below is a scientific study that shows the effect of denaturzation on the viscosity of protein systems. Note it also says some things about NaOH, which this product contains. No matter the amount of NaOH, it will always denature the protein systems in water based substances once heated. Once heated, that is when it forms a clear, gel consistency. This is where these products holding abilities and clear consistency come from.

I dont get it. Again, there CANT be OH- ions in an acidic solution. Thats chemistry 101. There is no NaOH, that would only happen if the solution is basic and provided its not bonding to other compounds.
If you add enough acid to ANY alkali it will neutralize and if you still ad more it will end up being acid.
That low lye ingredient list has calcium hidroxide as active ingredient and the product is basic to break the hair bonds. Thats it, i dont underestand what you try to prove with that

Originally Posted by butter52

They are considered low lye, because they are equally as effective as breaking the bonds. they just do it more slowly. (I have already posted a link that proved that, but will edit it in again. They still form some variation of hydroxide.

I will provide direct scientific abstact quotes that prove that ethanol and ethanolamine react with any acid in a water base and thermally denatured concoction to become NaOH.

THE EFFECT OF DENATURATION ON THE VISCOSITY OF PROTEIN SYSTEMS BY M. L. ANSON A~D A. E. MIRSKY (From tke Laboratories of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, N. Y., and the ttospital of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Researck, New York) (Accepted for publication, December 2, 1931]

I don't understand why you feel the need to provide all of these sources to "prove" your personal experience. Do you have any other outlet to express yourself? Nobody needs to prove their personal experience, that's why it's personal. I got lost somewhere between Wikipedia and yahoo to know what this thread is actually trying to prove.

Oh, okay. I have a direct quote that shows the study's legitamacy is correct. I will edit it in.

"Study participants reside in more than 17 states, with the majority residing in New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey. The Institutional Review Board of Boston University Medical Center approved the study protocol."source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759283

Originally Posted by flowerpow

Unfortunately, the link takes me to a login page.

But from this quote, I see what the sample consisted of but not how they were chosen. Just because Boston University Medical approved the study protocol, doesn't mean that it is automatically valid. Let me put it this way, a study can be legitimate, without being valid. I can find a study valid, but another researcher may find it invalid. Those doing the study will be stating their peace about why they feel it is valid and how they came to that conclusion (usually written in the article) and there can be other articles written to disprove the findings. It is like a debate. One researcher conducts an experiment to further their opinion on the matter. We can choose to believe or disbelieve based on the data represented. So, while you may choose to believe it, others may not. Unless they have irrefutable proof and the data is extremely significant, it leaves room for argument.

I'm not saying this is the case, because I haven't read the articles or interpreted them for myself. I just wanted to point out that what you find significant may be insignificant to others on this forum.

Originally Posted by DaniGirl88

More HARD Proof it is valid is contained in the abstract. I will edit post them here.

"With regard to uterine leiomyomata, a random sample of cases (n = 24 were mailed supplemental questionnaires regarding their initial date of diagnosis, method(s) of confirmation, symptoms, and treatment, and they were asked for permission to review their medical records. We obtained medical records from 127 of the 128 women who gave us permission and confirmed the self-report in 122 (96%). Among the 188 (76%) who provided supplemental survey data, 71% reported uterine leiomyomata-related symptoms prior to diagnosis, and 87% reported that their condition came to clinical attention because they sought treatment for symptoms or a tumor was palpable during a routine pelvic examination. There were no appreciable differences between cases who did and did not release medical records with respect to uterine leiomyomata risk factors.[46]"

"Hair relaxer variables were categorized according to their frequency distributions in the analytical sample. We also created a hair relaxer score variable, the product of frequency and duration of use, after first converting them to continuous variables by assigning values to the midpoint of each category. We defined "never users" as those who reported never using hair relaxers or having used them for less than 1 year in total. A covariate was included in multivariable analyses if it was either an established risk factor for uterine leiomyomata identified from the literature or a potential risk factor for uterine leiomyomata associated with hair relaxer use. On the basis of these criteria, we constructed a multivariable model that controlled for age (1-year intervals), time period (2-year intervals), age at menarche (years), parity (births), age at first birth (years), years since last birth (<5, 5–9, 10–14, 15, ≥20), oral contraceptive use (never, current, past), body mass index (<20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, ≥35 kg/m2), smoking (current, past, never), current alcohol use (<1, 1–6, ≥7 drinks/week), education (≤12, 13–15, 16, ≥17 years), marital status (married/partnered, divorced/separated/widowed, single), occupation (white collar, non-white collar, unemployed, missing), household income (≤$25,000, $25,001–$50,000, $50,001–$100,000, >$100,000, missing), geographic region (South, Northeast, Midwest, and West), and country of birth (United States vs. outside United States)."

"Tests for trend were conducted by modeling the ordinal categorical version of the exposure variable among the ever users of hair relaxers.[48] We used stratification methods to examine whether main associations were modified by other covariates such as body mass index, education, and geographic region. P values from interaction tests were obtained by using the likelihood ratio test comparing models with and without cross-product terms between the covariate and exposure variable. Departures from proportional hazards were evaluated in the same manner by using cross-product terms between each exposure variable and age (<35 vs. ≥35 years) and time period (1997–2003 vs. 2003–2009). Analyses were performed by using SAS, version 9.2, statistical software.[49]"

Originally Posted by flowerpow

Very interesting study, but I'd have to see the whole thing to give an opinion. Mainly, the internal consistency of those surveyed. Anyway, glad you found something that corrected the problem and that your hair is now healthy. All the best to you.

I don't understand why you feel the need to provide all of these sources to "prove" your personal experience. Do you have any other outlet to express yourself? Nobody needs to prove their personal experience, that's why it's personal. I got lost somewhere between Wikipedia and yahoo to know what this thread is actually trying to prove.

Originally Posted by sixelamy

The point is to prove that is was caused by Sodium Hydroxide. I put pictures, because people seemed to be thinking I was lying.

I don't understand why you feel the need to provide all of these sources to "prove" your personal experience. Do you have any other outlet to express yourself? Nobody needs to prove their personal experience, that's why it's personal. I got lost somewhere between Wikipedia and yahoo to know what this thread is actually trying to prove.

Originally Posted by sixelamy

Don''t worry, I'll get you right back on track with the scientific abstract, direct quotes for you to read.

All you needed to say was you thought that was the culprit, in your experience. And ask if anybody else had experienced it. The way you came on this thread with all the different fonts and colors and bolding things and providing 50 links was a bit much.

Maybe you had a bad batch. You should've contacted the company with the batch # so they could look into it, instead of coming on here telling everyone to stay away from the product. It's pretty popular here and a lot of people really like it.

THE EFFECT OF DENATURATION ON THE VISCOSITY OF PROTEIN SYSTEMS BY M. L. ANSON A~D A. E. MIRSKY (From tke Laboratories of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, N. Y., and the ttospital of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Researck, New York) (Accepted for publication, December 2, 1931]

"Effect of Alkali Added after Heating in Acid.--If a solution of al-bumin in acid is heated and then neutralized the protein is precipitated. If, however, the amount of alkali added is just not enough to cause precipitation then the resulting solution in time becomes very viscous even if the concentration of protein is low."

"Effect of Addition of Native Protein.--The addition of native, salt-free egg albumin to albumin heated in acid has the same sort ofeffect as the addition of NaOH."

"The native albumin probably acts not only by combining with the acid to produce a less acid solution in which the denatured albumin is less soluble, but also by combining with denatured albumin itself, since, at the pH produced, denatured egg albumin would precipitate in the absence of native protein. In general, in many so-called mixtures of soluble and insoluble proteins of all sorts when the conditions are such that the insoluble protein does not precipitate, although it would precipitate in the absence of the soluble protein, then the solution of the two proteins may have a variety of physical properties not possessed by solutions of either of the two proteins taken alone."

"Effect of Water Added before and after Heating.--If anacid solution of albumin is diluted with water before it is heated, the water has a much greater effect in lowering the viscosity than if it is added after the heating of the more concentrated solution."

"For instance, if a 4 per cent solution of albumin in 0.008 HC1 is diluted with an equalvolume of water before heating, then after heating the viscosity at 25°C. is1.48. If the dilution is done after the heating the viscosity is 3.85. Even more striking results can be obtained by using somewhat more viscous solutions. It is easy to obtain two solutions of the same composition whose viscosities differ more than five times."

You seem to have a pretty good understanding of the quote directly above, but are not taking into account the below:

"Acid likewise has a greater effect on the viscosity when it is added before rather than after the heating. As has already been shown, near the precipitation zone the addition of a little more acid before the heating makes the viscosity on heating much lower. The addition of the same amount of acid after heating has little more effect than the addition of the same amount of water. "

"Without multiplying examples it may be said that in general it is easier to prevent the formation of a viscous solution by adding water, acid or alkali, than to decrease grossly the viscosity of an already viscous solution, just as it is often easier to prevent the precipitation of a substance than to dissolve it once it is precipitated."

"Heat coagulated and precipitated albumin does not dissolve readily in a concentration of acid which is sufficient to prevent the precipitation on heating."

Im confused, what does the fact that calcium hidroxide is a low lye relaxer have to do with TEA?

And you yourself proved there is no relaxing! Its acid!

Edited: looked up at the article and it talks about viscosity of denatured protein solutions, what does that have to do with this? Im lost.

Originally Posted by butter52

okay, it's a lot so it can be confusing. it essentially proves that a alkaline subsance(The alkaline egg), the addition of an acid, water being a base, and the denaturing effects of heating, that NaOH will be produced. Why? Because it in total combination makes it difficult for the salt turning properties to completely dissolve, meaning the salt compound is still formed, also resulting in the clear color and gel consistency (aka "clear colored viscious liquid". With out heat, the colors would be "opalescent" With out heat, NaOH would not form.

Also NaOH's bond breaking properties are not singularily reliant on the ph alone. No where have i said the ph is what causes the hair bonds to break. Sodium bicarbonate would never have this effect on the hair. It's the fact that there is hydroxide in it that creates the difference. I have credible scientific sources that directly prove that. Will post them in edit.

THE EFFECT OF DENATURATION ON THE VISCOSITY OF PROTEIN SYSTEMS BY M. L. ANSON A~D A. E. MIRSKY (From tke Laboratories of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, N. Y., and the ttospital of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Researck, New York) (Accepted for publication, December 2, 1931]

"Effect of Alkali Added after Heating in Acid.--If a solution of al-bumin in acid is heated and then neutralized the protein is precipitated. If, however, the amount of alkali added is just not enough to cause precipitation then the resulting solution in time becomes very viscous even if the concentration of protein is low."

"Effect of Addition of Native Protein.--The addition of native, salt-free egg albumin to albumin heated in acid has the same sort ofeffect as the addition of NaOH."

"The native albumin probably acts not only by combining with the acid to produce a less acid solution in which the denatured albumin is less soluble, but also by combining with denatured albumin itself, since, at the pH produced, denatured egg albumin would precipitate in the absence of native protein. In general, in many so-called mixtures of soluble and insoluble proteins of all sorts when the conditions are such that the insoluble protein does not precipitate, although it would precipitate in the absence of the soluble protein, then the solution of the two proteins may have a variety of physical properties not possessed by solutions of either of the two proteins taken alone."

"Effect of Water Added before and after Heating.--If anacid solution of albumin is diluted with water before it is heated, the water has a much greater effect in lowering the viscosity than if it is added after the heating of the more concentrated solution."

"For instance, if a 4 per cent solution of albumin in 0.008 HC1 is diluted with an equalvolume of water before heating, then after heating the viscosity at 25°C. is1.48. If the dilution is done after the heating the viscosity is 3.85. Even more striking results can be obtained by using somewhat more viscous solutions. It is easy to obtain two solutions of the same composition whose viscosities differ more than five times."

You seem to have a pretty good understanding of the quote directly above, but are not taking into account the below:

"Acid likewise has a greater effect on the viscosity when it is added before rather than after the heating. As has already been shown, near the precipitation zone the addition of a little more acid before the heating makes the viscosity on heating much lower. The addition of the same amount of acid after heating has little more effect than the addition of the same amount of water. "

"Without multiplying examples it may be said that in general it is easier to prevent the formation of a viscous solution by adding water, acid or alkali, than to decrease grossly the viscosity of an already viscous solution, just as it is often easier to prevent the precipitation of a substance than to dissolve it once it is precipitated."

"Heat coagulated and precipitated albumin does not dissolve readily in a concentration of acid which is sufficient to prevent the precipitation on heating."

Originally Posted by flowerpow

???
Where? I just see them talking about the efect of pH in an albumina solution. Where is the TEA that only can make NaOH??

Listen I think ive been respectfull and have adressed this issue with interest, but are you kidding me or something? If I werent totally new to this forum Id think this is a new intrincate way of trolling.

Im confused, what does the fact that calcium hidroxide is a low lye relaxer have to do with TEA?

And you yourself proved there is no relaxing! Its acid!

Edited: looked up at the article and it talks about viscosity of denatured protein solutions, what does that have to do with this? Im lost.

Originally Posted by butter52

okay, it's a lot so it can be confusing. it essentially proves that a alkaline subsance(The alkaline egg), the addition of an acid, water being a base, and the denaturing effects of heating, that NaOH will be produced. Why? Because it in total combination makes it difficult for the salt turning properties to completely dissolve, meaning the salt compound is still formed, also resulting in the clear color and gel consistency (aka "clear colored viscious liquid". With out heat, the colors would be "opalescent" With out heat, NaOH would not form.

Also NaOH's bond breaking properties are not singularily reliant on the ph alone. No where have i said the ph is what causes the hair bonds to break. Sodium bicarbonate would never have this effect on the hair. It's the fact that there is hydroxide in it that creates the difference. I have credible scientific sources that directly prove that. Will post them in edit.

Originally Posted by flowerpow

Ok you are just making all that up. Just in case you are not a troll: the adding of NaOH or an acid to a protein solution (the albumin) will denature the protein (it breaks the protein structure, like heat also does), and denaturalized albumin is viscous. Thats it. Stop making it up, its ok not to know things, its just absurd to pray you know them when you dont even have a clue. Seriously im not trying to be disrespectfull, im just engcouraging you to take some basic chemistry books and enjoy learning from the basics.

THE EFFECT OF DENATURATION ON THE VISCOSITY OF PROTEIN SYSTEMS BY M. L. ANSON A~D A. E. MIRSKY (From tke Laboratories of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, N. Y., and the ttospital of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Researck, New York) (Accepted for publication, December 2, 1931]

"Effect of Alkali Added after Heating in Acid.--If a solution of al-bumin in acid is heated and then neutralized the protein is precipitated. If, however, the amount of alkali added is just not enough to cause precipitation then the resulting solution in time becomes very viscous even if the concentration of protein is low."

"Effect of Addition of Native Protein.--The addition of native, salt-free egg albumin to albumin heated in acid has the same sort ofeffect as the addition of NaOH."

"The native albumin probably acts not only by combining with the acid to produce a less acid solution in which the denatured albumin is less soluble, but also by combining with denatured albumin itself, since, at the pH produced, denatured egg albumin would precipitate in the absence of native protein. In general, in many so-called mixtures of soluble and insoluble proteins of all sorts when the conditions are such that the insoluble protein does not precipitate, although it would precipitate in the absence of the soluble protein, then the solution of the two proteins may have a variety of physical properties not possessed by solutions of either of the two proteins taken alone."

"Effect of Water Added before and after Heating.--If anacid solution of albumin is diluted with water before it is heated, the water has a much greater effect in lowering the viscosity than if it is added after the heating of the more concentrated solution."

"For instance, if a 4 per cent solution of albumin in 0.008 HC1 is diluted with an equalvolume of water before heating, then after heating the viscosity at 25°C. is1.48. If the dilution is done after the heating the viscosity is 3.85. Even more striking results can be obtained by using somewhat more viscous solutions. It is easy to obtain two solutions of the same composition whose viscosities differ more than five times."

You seem to have a pretty good understanding of the quote directly above, but are not taking into account the below:

"Acid likewise has a greater effect on the viscosity when it is added before rather than after the heating. As has already been shown, near the precipitation zone the addition of a little more acid before the heating makes the viscosity on heating much lower. The addition of the same amount of acid after heating has little more effect than the addition of the same amount of water. "

"Without multiplying examples it may be said that in general it is easier to prevent the formation of a viscous solution by adding water, acid or alkali, than to decrease grossly the viscosity of an already viscous solution, just as it is often easier to prevent the precipitation of a substance than to dissolve it once it is precipitated."

"Heat coagulated and precipitated albumin does not dissolve readily in a concentration of acid which is sufficient to prevent the precipitation on heating."

Originally Posted by flowerpow

???
Where? I just see them talking about the efect of pH in an albumina solution. Where is the TEA that only can make NaOH??

Listen I think ive been respectfull and have adressed this issue with interest, but are you kidding me or something? If I werent totally new to this forum Id think this is a new intrincate way of trolling.

Originally Posted by butter52

I haven't quoted that in detail yet. I will edit and add it as it's a lot to do at once. but i have this quote included in the previous reply.

"Effect of Addition of Native Protein.--The addition of native, salt-free egg albumin to albumin heated in acid has the same sort ofeffect as the addition of NaOH.""